It’s getting harder to defend war criminals and their intellectual bodyguards

John Stauber lays out the argument against the Democrat’s support for the bipartisan war in Iraq and Stauber doesn’t leave out their water carriers (such as MoveOn.org).

Very few Democrats are talking about impeachment and war crimes trials. Yesterday, Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) spoke on Democracy Now! on this topic (video, audio, transcript). One can only hope that memories of the war will last beyond the end of Pres. George W. Bush’s second term so that he can be brought to justice. As I’ve noted on this blog before, Americans seem to have trouble finding the time to hold high officials accountable for their crimes after they leave office, as though the resulting deaths somehow become irrelevant.

May 25, 2007: Day of action against Gonzales and DRM

DefectiveByDesign.org is mounting a day of action against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and digital restrictions management (“DRM” framed from the point of the user) when Disney releases their new movie:

On Monday, Gonzales called on Congress to enact a sweeping new bill entitled the “Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007” (IPPA) that would amongst other things:

  • Increase penalties for circumventing a DRM scheme
  • Criminalize “attempting” to infringe copyright
  • Permit more wiretaps for investigating copyright violations
  • Add penalties for “intended” copyright crimes

This proposed legislation is a result of Hollywood’s lobbying, serving their special interests at the expense of the public good. As we have seen, thanks to the recent events like the Digg revolt, the public have turned against DRM. The illegal hex code that can be used to remove the DRM from HD-DVD can now be found on over a million web pages.

This is Hollywood’s attempt to scare us all into accepting DRM. Now is the time to take action!

On Friday May 25th, around the world, Disney will release “Pirates of the Caribbean – At World’s End”, a movie about a diverse community coming together to fight the far reaching and oppressive East India Trading Company to preserve their freedom loving lifestyle (sound kind of familiar?)

If you’d like to get a yellow hazard suit to protest at your local theater, Defective by Design can help.

Support Ogg Vorbis and your own freedom

The Free Software Foundation has started a new campaign to convince people to support Ogg Vorbis with PlayOgg.org. Other formats (such as MP3, AAC, and many others) are patent-encumbered or only available with proprietary software. You shouldn’t have to lose your freedom to control your computer just to play audio and video.

Long-time readers of Digital Citizen know that I host and steer people to multimedia encoded in free formats (Ogg Vorbis for general-purpose audio, FLAC for archival-quality audio, Speex for compressed versions of human speech, and Theora for video). I also work with others (such as News from Neptune) to help them host their media in free formats.

There are a number of programs for various operating systems to play all of these kinds of files. The audio files can be played with portable digital audio players too. So you don’t have to give up portability to keep your freedom when you’re on the road. The FSF has some instructions on acquiring and installing VideoLAN Client, a popular all-purpose media player and media sharing program.

More places you can go to get audio in Ogg Vorbis format (and licensed to share):

  • Jamendo—considerable variety, lots of French music
  • Magnatune—a wide variety of genres of music
  • Kahvi—easygoing electronic music
  • Pandora—Classical music

British Citizens: Tell MPs to not extend copyright term in UK

Seventy MPs have now signed an Early Day Motion calling for retrospective extension to the term of copyright. Despite much evidence to the contrary and a study which concludes that “The European Commission should retain the length of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights at 50 years.” and the ruckus raised the last time the term of copyright was at issue (remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in the US and the related US Supreme Court case Eldred v Ashcroft?), it looks like copyright term extension is going again.

Longer terms of copyright around the world are used as excuses for American copyright extensions—harmonization is the word used for this scam. It’s a scam in two respects: it’s never “harmonized” to exactly the same length and copyright term is always “harmonized” upwardly. So Americans have even more reason to help keep their friends and family from a worse copyright regime.

The Open Rights Group has more details including the 70 MPs that signed on to support copyright term extension and a pointer to a great talk and panel discussion on the topic (local copies of the Jonathan Zittrain talk and the debate that followed). I particularly enjoyed the analysis in the discussion period. I’ll see about converting the video to Ogg Vorbis+Theora.

We can’t recommend hardware that doesn’t support our freedom.

AMD owns ATI, a computer videocard manufacturer. Recent ATI videocards have no free software drivers. The proprietary ATI driver which works with a typical GNU/Linux system is poor quality and as a result many users have problems with it. At the Red Hat summit going on right now, an AMD representative discussed the situation and Tom Calloway blogged about it:

An executive VP from AMD gave a keynote this morning, and he talked up open source and committed to making the ATI driver “better”.

We don’t need the driver to be “better”, Mr. AMD, we need the driver to be “free”. You make it free. Free your specs. Free up a little of your manpower to answer technical queries from developers. Free Dave Airlie from his NDA restrictions. Free your existing code.

You make it free. We’ll make it better. Everyone will benefit.

Calloway has the right message; software freedom will lead to improved code quality. If ATI supported our freedom we could change our position from recommending against ATI hardware to telling people which ATI videocards to buy, just like we tell people which Intel hardware to look for in their next machines as a direct result of Intel’s stance supporting free software. On a related note, consider what ATI spokesperson Henri Richard is reported to have said and the skeptical reaction recorded on Christopher Blizzard’s blog.

The situation Calloway describes here bears an eerie similarity to something we’ve heard before.
Continue reading

More OLPC progress

One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is progressing and the folks at OLPC have put together another video with interviews of the people behind the project.

If you’re unfamiliar with their work, you can search for “OLPC” on this blog and find their other video.

As before, the new video is licensed to to share under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 2.5 license (local copy).

DNC PR head is an RIAA shill

Let Boing Boing take you through a few choice quotes from Jenni Engebretsen, the RIAA’s Director of Communications who is now the head of public relations for the Democratic National Convention. Also, Boing Boing has more on the shill’s avoidance of difficult issues including:

The liberal blogosophere is united on many fronts — not just disliking US foreign policy. We also hate the RIAA — for suing our friends, for lobbying for laws that suspend due process rights of the accused (the RIAA’s favorite law, the DMCA, was used by Diebold to suppress information about failures in its voting machines), and for demanding the right to “pretext” (commit wire fraud) in order to catch “pirates.”

Worse still, the RIAA are part of the initiative to corrupt net neutrality, imposing centralized controls on the transmission of information across the network.

However I should add that I don’t agree with “liberals” on some issues, their love for proprietary software for instance.

More corporations instead of fewer?

In its latest letter, FreePress.net tells us

The controversy over Don Imus’ racist remarks goes far beyond one bigoted commentator. But getting rid of Imus won’t fix the media problem.

Most of our TV and radio stations are owned by giant corporate conglomerates. They don’t represent the views of most Americans — and they make huge profits off the public airwaves.

What we need are more diverse, independent and local media owners. Yet right now less than 10% of TV and radio stations are owned by people of color or women.

But instead of addressing this national disgrace, the Federal Communications Commission is actually trying to let the largest companies buy up even more stations!

What if more media corporations owned more radio stations and what if those media corporations were owned by people of color or women? Wouldn’t those corporations seek a profit even at the expense of the public good?

Additional corporate ownership of media won’t properly address the latest diversion from the continuing occupation of Iraq, lack of universal single-payer health care, non-living wage paying jobs, environmental exploitation, and other life-or-death social maladies. If the independence FreePress.net speaks of would include individuals sharing media bandwidth like we share the Internet now, that would be more interesting to me. But in order to get that we’d have to do away with the idea that spectrum should be auctioned off as a marketable commodity because that ensures it would go to the richest person or organization and we’re right back to locking up spectrum in the metaphorical hands of the megacorporations.

Additional ownership of media won’t necessarily give us more ownership by people of color or women. Nor am I convinced that changing the people at the top is going to effect change for the user. FreePress.net disagrees, they would have us believe that Don Imus’ latest kerfuffle should be resolved by shuffling the deck chairs of management:

The best way to stop this race to the bottom is to change who’s sitting at the top — and making the decisions about who’s behind the mic.

The Corporation shows us that the problems of corporate power are structural not personal; very nice people can become CEOs of corporations with sexist, anti-environmental, racist, and homophobic policies that have made their shareholders rich in the past. An organization built to pursue shareholder wealth above all else gives heads of corporations the power to behave in ways they wouldn’t otherwise behave. For more on this, listen to this extract of Mark Achbar’s commentary track from the excellent movie “The Corporation” (Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Speex). In the background you can hear the soundtrack of the movie “The Corporation” including Noam Chomsky discussing this point.

What does your town and University say about protests?

Students at the University of Southern California are protesting sweatshop-made school merchandise. Boing Boing has a good take on this:

The students from SCALE — the anti-sweatshop group — tell me that the last time they protested, they were thrown out of the “free speech zone” by a security guard who told them they had “too many people for the free speech zone.”

It’s shameful for the university to buy sweatshop goods, and doubly shameful for the administration to betray the principles of free speech and free inquiry that are supposed to be uppermost in the academy. What a crummy civics lesson to impart to our students: “get in the box and shut up.”

Or, the box exists so that the University can tell people what they’re allowed to say by disallowing free speech outside the box and regulating who can enter the box.

Both major corporate-funded political parties had “free speech zones” at their national conventions.

Related links:

DRM is merely a foot in the door

I’m not convinced that any of the large publishers want to stop unauthorized copying, really. I think digital restrictions management (a far more honest expansion for DRM as it focuses on the effect for the largest group of people–the users) is merely the latest means to an end: getting more power and money from those who believe large publishers want to stop unauthorized copying.

Consider this from the venture capitalist’s perspective: if any of them are foolish enough to believe that DRM could work (if only it were implemented in the correct way), foolish enough to believe that a computer can discern intent (and thus distinguish between a copy made for an approved purpose versus a copy made for any other purpose), there’s a business willing to take that money and build a shoddy DRM system.

Congress has been quite willing to give copyright holders more power on the logic that they must do something to stop unauthorized copying; even at the expense of free speech, interoperation, and competition (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

The large publishers are doing the majority of the talking when it comes to lobbying Congress for increased monopoly power.  Even if you’re a copyright holder sympathetic to the concerns about unauthorized copying, should you let them speak for you?